DOCSLIB.ORG

11.0 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
11.0 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity 11.0 SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY This chapter summarizes existing geologic conditions in the project area, describes applicable regulations, and evaluates project-related impacts associated with on-site geology, soils, seismic hazards, and slope stability. Mitigation measures are recommended as necessary to reduce significant geologic impacts. As described in Chapter 1.0, “Introduction,” the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources, nor would it impede or interfere with mineral extraction operations, and the project area is not delineated as a locally important recovery site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no effect with regard to mineral resources, and this topic will not be discussed further in this chapter. 11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11.1.1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SETTING The project area is located along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. The Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province is a tilted fault block nearly 400 miles long. Its east face is a high, rugged multiple scarp, in contrast with the gentle western slope, which disappears under sediments of the Great Valley. Deep river canyons are cut into the western slope. Their upper courses, especially in massive granites of the higher Sierra Nevada, are modified by glacial sculpturing, forming such scenic features as the Yosemite Valley. The high crest culminates in Mount Whitney, with an elevation of 14,495 feet above sea level near the eastern scarp. The metamorphic bedrock contains gold-bearing veins in the northwest trending Mother Lode. The northern Sierra Nevada boundary is marked where bedrock disappears under the Cenozoic volcanic cover of the Cascade Range (California Geological Survey 2002). The western slope of the Sierra Nevada is underlain by a series of metamorphic rock assemblages that trend north- northwest to south-southeast between the Mesozoic granitics of the Sierra Nevada batholith on the east and the sediment-filled Sacramento Valley to the west. These metamorphic rocks were developed by convergent plate tectonics in the early Paleozoic to Late Jurassic (400–120 million years ago) and consist of three northerly trending units bounded by faults and classified on the basis of age and lithology: the Eastern, Central, and Western metamorphic terranes. 11.1.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY The proposed trail alignment is located in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Auburn and Greenwood 7.5- minute quadrangles and is approximately 14.2 miles from the confluence of the North Fork/Middle Fork American River confluence. The average gradient for most of the slopes along the proposed trail alignment is about 70% or flatter. Some segments, however, intersect slopes approaching 100% gradient. The proposed trail alignment would be approximately 200–400 feet above the river on the southern slope of the North Fork American River canyon. Published geologic maps show the majority of the proposed trail alignment in a mixed-rock area described as a “mélange belt,” composed of intermixed Mesozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock with isolated bodies of limestone. The northeast section of the proposed trail alignment (from the Ponderosa Bridge to approximately 1 mile downstream) is mapped as Mesozoic metavolcanic flow rocks of the Logtown Ridge Formation (predominantly metamorphosed breccias, flows, and pyroclastic rocks) and Mesozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Mariposa Formation (predominantly slate, metagraywacke, and metaconglomerate) (Blackburn Consulting 2006, 2007). The entire project area is mapped as predominantly hard, fractured, metavolcanic flow rocks. This rock structure strikes generally north-northwest, with fracture/foliation planes dipping steeply northeast. The lesser bands are mapped as northwesterly trending metavolcanic tuffs and metashale that cross sections of the proposed trail alignment. These bands tend to be intensely weathered/foliated and, in general, less competent than rock flow. North Fork American River Trail Project Draft EIR EDAW Placer County 11-1 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Isolated limestone bodies, typically hard and massive, are also mapped in the metavolcanic flow rock (Blackburn Consulting 2006, 2007). 11.1.3 RECREATIONAL GEOLOGIC FEATURES Recreational geologic resources typically include volcanoes, surface hydrothermal features, or surface expression of geologic features unique enough to generate recreational interest in the general public (e.g., natural bridges, caves, features associated with glaciation, and geomorphic features such as waterfalls, cliffs, canyons, and badlands). Based on a review of available geological literature, topographic maps, and a field visit to the site, there are no known recreational geologic resources in the project area. 11.1.4 SOIL RESOURCES Maps provided by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service) (SCS 1980) were reviewed to identify the distribution of soil types in the project area. Exhibit 11-1 provides a detailed map of the surficial soils in the project area. The physical and chemical characteristics of each soil type identified from the project site are presented below. 121 Auburn–Sobrante–Rock outcrop complex, 275% slopes—This soil is on undulating to very steep foothills. Rock outcrops are common. The soil forms in material weathered from metabasic or metasedimentary rock such as amphibolite schist, greenstone schist, or diabase at elevations of 125–3,000 feet. Soil is shallow over fractured, vertically tilted metabasic rock with rock outcrops. There are typically 4 inches of silt loam over 20 inches of silt loam subsoil. This soil is well drained, with slow to very rapid runoff and moderate permeability. This soil is used mostly for annual rangeland with small areas used for irrigated pasture. Rock is erosion resistant. 126 Boomer–Rock outcrop complex, 5–30% slopes—This soil forms over weathered metavolcanic (greenstone) bedrock at elevations of 500–5,000 feet. Soil is shallow over weathered schist and slate with rock outcrops. There are typically 10 inches of gravelly loam over 46 inches of gravelly clay loam subsoil. This soil is found on uplands; it is well drained, has slow to very rapid runoff, and has moderately slow permeability. This soil is used often for forestry and watersheds. Rock is erosion resistant. 164 Mariposa-Josephine complex, 5–30% slopes—The Mariposa-Josephine complex is encountered at elevations of 1,500–4,000 feet. Mariposa is common to ridges and south- and west-facing slopes, while Josephine is common to north- and east-facing slopes. Soil is shallow over weathered schist and slate with isolated rock outcrops. There are typically 6 inches of gravelly loam over 22 inches of gravelly clay loam subsoil. The complex is well drained with moderately slow permeability and moderate to high erosion hazard. Rock is erosion resistant. 167, 168 Mariposa–Rock outcrop complex, 50–70% slopes—This soil occurs on undulating to steep mountains at elevations of 1,600–5,600 feet. It is formed in material from metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. Soil is shallow over fractured, vertically tilted schist and slate with rock outcrops. There are typically 6 inches of gravelly loam over 28 inches of gravelly loam subsoil. This soil is well drained, has slow to very rapid runoff, and has moderate permeability. Timber production is the predominant use, with some grazing and deciduous fruit orchards. Rock is erosion resistant. 170 Maymen–Rock outcrop complex, 5–100% slopes—The Maymen–Rock outcrop complex occurs at elevations of 1,200–3,500 feet and generally consists of 50% Maymen soil, 20% Rock outcrop, 25% Mariposa gravelly loam, and 5% Josephine loam. Soil is shallow, with rock outcrops. There are typically 2 inches of gravelly loam over 10 inches of gravelly loam subsoil. The Maymen is a shallow, gravelly loam that is somewhat excessively drained, and permeability is moderate. Timber production and residential development are limited on this complex because of the slope, shallowness, and rock outcroppings. Rock is erosion resistant. EDAW North Fork American River Trail Project Draft EIR Soils, Geology, and Seismicity 11-2 Placer County Source: United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service 1977 Soil Types in the Project Area Exhibit 11-1 North Fork American River Trail Project Draft EIR EDAW Placer County 11-3 Soils, Geology, and Seismicity 190 Sites–Rock outcrop complex, 15–30% slopes—This soil occurs on mountains at elevations of 600–5,000 feet. It is formed in material weathered from metabasic and metasedimentary rocks. This soil is well drained, has slow to very rapid runoff, and has moderately slow permeability. Soil is shallow, with rock outcrops. There are typically 16 inches of loam and clay over 50 inches of clay (weathered rock). Timber production is the predominant use, with some areas cleared and used for deciduous fruit orchards. Rock is erosion resistant. SHRINK-SWELL POTENTIAL Shrink-swell potential is the potential for volume change in a soil with a loss or gain in moisture; soils swell when wet and shrink when dry. If the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, volume changes can eventually result in damage to subsurface structures if the structures are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the changing soil conditions. Soils with high clay content tend to be most affected by shrink and swell. The potential for soil to undergo shrink and swell is greatly enhanced by the presence of a fluctuating, shallow groundwater table. Volume changes of expansive soils can result in the consolidation of soft clays after the water table drops or fill is placed. NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS Asbestiform minerals occur naturally in rock and soil as the result of natural geologic processes, often in veins near earthquake faults in the Coast Range and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. Naturally occurring asbestos can take the form of long, thin, separable fibers. Natural weathering or human disturbance can break naturally occurring asbestos down to microscopic fibers, easily suspended in air. There is no health threat if asbestos fibers in soil remain undisturbed and do not become airborne.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan
    Squaw Valley Real Estate, LLC Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan THE VILLAGE AT SQUAW VALLEY 6/28/2016 This Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan (EPEP) has been prepared for The Village at Squaw Valley Specific Plan (VSVSP) project under the supervision of Placer County and in coordination with Pete Hnat, Chief Executive Officer, Emergency Management Consultants. The focus of the EPEP is primarily on emergency preparedness and evacuation protocols as related to emergency events, such as fire. However, other hazards are addressed as well, including avalanche, seismic and flood protection measures. Emergency Preparedness and Evacuation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Project Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.1 Location .................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Squaw Valley |Alpine Meadows Base-To-Base Gondola Project Draft EIS/EIR 4.3-1 Wilderness SE Group & Ascent Environmental
    SE Group & Ascent Environmental Wilderness 4.3 WILDERNESS This section includes discussion of potential impacts of the proposed Base-to-Base Gondola project on the National Forest System-Granite Chief Wilderness (GCW), which is adjacent to the project area (i.e., the area generally encompassed by all three action alternatives). No construction, and therefore no direct effects, would occur on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the GCW. However, indirect impacts on its wilderness character and wilderness users could occur, as described below. This section additionally assesses impacts associated with a portion of privately owned land that was included within the area mapped by Congress as part of the GCW within the 1984 California Wilderness Act. For clarity, this section references the NFS lands within the GCW as “National Forest System-GCW” and refers to the privately owned land included within the congressionally mapped wilderness boundary as “private lands within the congressionally mapped GCW.” In accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, federally-managed Wilderness areas, like the National Forest System-GCW, are defined as follows: (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
    [Show full text]
  • Bear Creek Watershed Assessment Report
    BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Prepared by: PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96162 February 16, 2018 And Dr. Susan Lindstrom, PhD BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA February 16, 2018 A REPORT PREPARED FOR: Truckee River Watershed Council PO Box 8568 Truckee, California 96161 (530) 550-8760 www.truckeeriverwc.org by Brian Hastings Balance Hydrologics Geomorphologist Matt Wacker HT Harvey and Associates Restoration Ecologist Reviewed by: David Shaw Balance Hydrologics Principal Hydrologist © 2018 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Project Assignment: 217121 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2251 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA < This page intentionally left blank > ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc. BEAR CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT – PLACER COUNTY – CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1 1.2 Structure of This Report 4 1.3 Acknowledgments 4 1.4 Work Conducted 5 2 BACKGROUND 6 2.1 Truckee River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 6 2.2 Water Resource Regulations Specific to Bear Creek 7 3 WATERSHED SETTING 9 3.1 Watershed Geology 13 3.1.1 Bedrock Geology and Structure 17 3.1.2 Glaciation 18 3.2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 19 3.3 Hydrology and Climate 24 3.3.1 Hydrology 24 3.3.2 Climate 24 3.3.3 Climate Variability: Wet and Dry Periods 24 3.3.4 Climate Change 33 3.4 Bear Creek Water Quality 33 3.4.1 Review of Available Water Quality Data 33 3.5 Sediment Transport 39 3.6 Biological Resources 40 3.6.1 Land Cover and Vegetation Communities 40 3.6.2 Invasive Species 53 3.6.3 Wildfire 53 3.6.4 General Wildlife 57 3.6.5 Special-Status Species 59 3.7 Disturbance History 74 3.7.1 Livestock Grazing 74 3.7.2 Logging 74 3.7.3 Roads and Ski Area Development 76 4 WATERSHED CONDITION 81 4.1 Stream, Riparian, and Meadow Corridor Assessment 81 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019
    French Meadows Forest Restoration Project February 2019 The 28,000-acre French Meadows Forest Restoration Project is using a collaborative, all-lands approach to restore forest health and resilience and reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire in the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the American River, a critical municipal watershed located on the Tahoe National Forest in California’s Sierra Nevada. The Project was developed by a diverse partnership, including the U.S. Forest Service, which manages most of the land within the project area; Placer County Water Agency, which manages two reservoirs downstream of the project for municipal water and hydropower; The Nature Conservancy, one of the world’s largest conservation organizations; the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency and funder; Placer County, a business partner in the hydropower project; the American River Conservancy, an adjacent private landowner; and the Sierra Nevada Research Institute at UC Merced. The French Meadows Project aims to accelerate ecologically-based forest and watershed restoration on the Tahoe National Forest through a shared stewardship approach involving: • Collaborative Management. The partners co-led development of the project and hired consultants to undertake planning and environmental analysis, substantially reducing the planning time for similar Forest Service projects. • Diverse Fundraising. The partners raised funds from a wide variety of federal, state, local, and private sources, including significant investment from downstream water beneficiaries like the water utility and private beverage companies. • Innovative Project Implementation. Placer County will hire contractors to implement thinning and other mechanical treatments, under a Master Stewardship Agreement with the Forest Service. The Nature Conservancy and the Forest Service will work together to develop and implement a prescribed burn plan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Genesis of the Placer County Water Agency
    a Heritage of Water: The Golden Anniversary of the Placer County Water Agency 1957-2007 Prepared by the Water Education Foundation Placer County History Book WEB1 9/10/2007, 3:08 PM Credits This book was prepared and published by the Water Education Foundation in conjunction with the Placer County Water Agency. The book tells the story of Placer County water from its role in the Gold Rush to the formation of the Placer County Water Agency, which has managed the county’s water resources for 50 years. Editor: Sue McClurg Authors: Ryan McCarthy, Janet Dunbar Fonseca, Ed Tiedemann, Ed Horton, Cheri Sprunck, Dave Breninger and Einar L. Maisch Design and Layout: Graphic Communications Printing: Paul Baker Printing Photos: Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley • William Briner • California State Archives (F3757:3) • California State Library • California State Parks – Auburn State Recreation Area Collection • Dave Carter • City of Rocklin • Placer County Water Agency • Ryan Salm/Sierra Sun • Special Collections, University of California, Davis • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) • U.S. National Forest Campground Guide • Karina Williams/Lincoln News Messenger • Bill Wilson On the cover: Hell Hole Reservoir (top) and building the Middle Fork Project PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY P.O. Box 6570 717 K Street, Suite 317 144 Ferguson Road Sacramento, CA 95814 Auburn, CA 95604 (916) 444-6240 (530) 823-4850 www.watereducation.org www.pcwa.net Copyright 2007 by Water Education Foundation • All rights reserved ISBN 1-893246-97-3 2 Placer County History Book WEB2 9/10/2007, 3:09 PM Foreword by David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel
    Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project Citation: Edelson, David and Hertslet, Angel. 2019. Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project. Unpublished report of The Nature Conservancy, Placer County Water Agency, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, American River Conservancy, and Sierra Nevada Research Institute at the University of California, Merced. San Francisco, California. 16 pp. May 2019 Contributors: This paper benefitted from thorough review, edits and contributions from Ed Smith, Andy Fecko, Marie Davis, Brett Storey, Andy Fristensky, Chris Dallas, Roger Bales, Elena DeLacy, Eli Ilano, Michael Woodbridge, Victor Lyon, Karen Walden, Laurie Perrot, Robert Galiano, Pat Farrell, Karen Quidichay, Susan Dewar, Sara Reese and Janelle Nolan. David Edelson, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Angel Hertslet, The Nature Conservancy, [email protected] Andy Fecko, Placer County Water Agency, [email protected] Andy Fristensky, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, [email protected] Brett Storey, Placer County, [email protected] Elena DeLacy, American River Conservancy, [email protected] Roger Bales, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, [email protected] Acknowledgments: The Nature Conservancy appreciates the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Northern Sierra Partnership, and contributors to TNC’s Sierra Forest and Water Challenge, which helped make this report possible. COVER: The French Meadows Project area, including the French Meadows Reservoir. © David Edelson/TNC Restoring Forests through Partnership: Lessons Learned from the French Meadows Project ealthy forests provide important benefits to people California’s northern Sierra Nevada (see map). The Project and nature, including clean water, clean air, carbon area includes 27,623 acres, of which 22,152 acres are national Hstorage, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness
    Appendices for the FEIS Appendix C: Evaluation of Areas for Potential Wilderness Introduction This document describes the process used to evaluate the wilderness potential of areas on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU). The March 2009 inventory conducted according to Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007 is the basis for this evaluation. The LTBMU was evaluated to determine landscape areas that exhibited inherent basic wilderness qualities such the degree of naturalness and undeveloped character. In addition to the wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must also provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment and area boundaries that could be managed as wilderness. It was determined that areas adjacent to existing wilderness and existing Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) were areas were most likely to have the characteristics described above. Other areas around the basin exhibited some of the required characteristics but not enough to be qualified for a congressional wilderness designation. Six areas were identified and evaluated. The analysis is based on GIS mapping of existing wilderness and inventoried roadless area polygon data, adjusted based on local knowledge. Three tests were used—capability, availability, and need—to determine suitability as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 70, 2007. In addition to the inherent wilderness qualities an area might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent on and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness. Capability is defined as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Existing Resources
    M I dd L E F O R K 80 A M E R I C A N FRENCH MEADOWS RESER VOIR HELL HOLE R LAKE RESER IVERTAHOE PROJECT VOIR MIDDLE FORK INTERBAY RALSTON AFTERBAY FORESTHILL RUBICON 49 MIDDLE FORK RIVER AMERICAN RIVER 80 AUBURN 50 The Middle Fork 49 River watershed rests in the heartAmerican of the Sierra Nevada, between the Sacramento V Lake alley to the west and Tahoe to the east. S FOLSOM u p p RESER o r t VOIR i n g D SD E o Existing c u Relevant S m u p e p n Comprehensive o t r E Plans & t i n g Resource D SD F o Resources Mgmt. Plans HE MFP IS SITUATED IN THE FOOTHILLS AND c u Existing m e n Resource mountainous uplands of the western slope of the Sierra Nevada t S F u p Information p WatershedT (totaling 616 square miles) is characterized by hot, dry range, northeast of Auburn, California. The surrounding o r Report t i n g summers and mild, wet winters, with most of the precipitation falling D SD G o c S u 00/00 between October and March. Precipitation primarily falls as rain in the u m p p e n Technical o t r lower elevations and snow at elevations greater than 5,000 feet above t G i Study Plans n g D SD J mean sea level (msl). Elevations higher than about 6,000 feet msl are & Reports o c u Confi dential m e typically covered by snow until May.
    [Show full text]
  • Foresthill Divide Community Plan
    00087 PPllaacceerr CCoountuntyy,, CCaalliiffoorrniniaa August, 2003 Quad Knopf,Inc. Prepared by: Plan Team Community Foresthill Divide Planning Dept. Placer County Prepared for: Community Plan Foresthill Divide PPllaacceerr CCoountuntyy,, CCaalliiffoorrniniaa August, 2003 Roberta MacGlashan,Project Manager Contact: 784-7823 (916) Roseville, CA95678 One Sierragate Plaza, Suite270C Quad Knopf, Inc. Prepared by: Michael Wells,Senior Planner Contact: (530) 886-3000 Auburn, CA95603 11414 BAvenue Plan Team Foresthill DivideCommunity Placer CountyPlanningDept. Prepared for: Community Plan Foresthill Divide TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1-1 A. PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY PLAN 1-1 B. THE PLAN AREA 1-2 C. REGIONAL SETTING/CONTEXT 1-3 D. PLANNING PROCESS 1-3 E. PLAN ASSUMPTIONS 1-3 F. RELATIONSHIP TO COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 1-5 G. VISION STATEMENT 1-5 II. GENERAL COMMUNITY GOALS 2-1 III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT 3-1 A. POPULATION AND HOUSING 3-1 1. Purpose 3-1 2. Goals and Policies 3-2 3. Population 3-3 4. Housing 3-4 5. Implementation 3-7 B. LAND USE 3-16 1. Purpose 3-16 2. General Concepts/Description 3-17 3. Goals and Policies 3-24 4. Description of Land Use Districts 3-30 5. Implementation 3-41 C. COMMUNITY DESIGN 3-43 1. Purpose 3-43 2. Elements of Community Design 3-43 3. Goals and Policies 3-52 4. Implementation 3-57 D. PUBLIC FACILITIES 3-58 1. Purpose 3-58 2. Goals and Policies 3-58 i 3. Sewage Disposal 3-60 4. Water Supply 3-62 5. Education/Schools 3-64 6. Fire Protection 3-68 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Placer County California Geological Survey Study
    SPECIAL REPORT 190 RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD FOR THE PRESENCE OF NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS IN PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2006 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION California Geological Survey STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MICHAEL CHRISMAN BRIDGETT LUTHER SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, PH.D.,STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2006 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. “The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose.” SPECIAL REPORT 190 RELATIVE LIKELIHOOD FOR THE PRESENCE OF NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS IN PLACER COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By Chris T. Higgins and John P. Clinkenbeard 2006 CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICES: Southern California Regional Office Library and Headquarters Office Bay Area Regional Office 888 Figueroa Street, Suite 475 801 K Street, MS 14-31 345 Middlefield Road, MS 520 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Sacramento, CA 95814-3531 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (213) 239-0878 (916) 445-5716 (650) 688-6327 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 Background on Naturally Occurring
    [Show full text]
  • Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08
    Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement – September 2008 Chapter 3: Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences – 3.08. Transportation 3.08. Transportation _____________________________________ Affected Environment Introduction This section of the environmental analysis examines the extent to which alternatives respond to transportation facilities direction established in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan transportation facilities direction was established under the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Forest Roads and Trails Act (FRTA). The National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) consists of roads, trails, airfields, and areas. The NFTS provides for protection, development, management, and utilization of resources on the National Forests. There are other roads and trails existing on the Forest that are not currently part of the NFTS. Transportation facilities considered in this analysis include roads and trails that are suitable for motor vehicle use. This analysis considers changes needed to the NFTS to meet the purpose and need of this analysis. Decisions regarding changes to the transportation facilities must consider: 1) providing for adequate public safety, and 2) providing adequate maintenance of the roads and trails that will be designated for public use. The analysis in this section primarily focuses on these two aspects of the NFTS. Background A majority of national forest visitors travel on national forest system roads. Roads have opened the Tahoe National Forest to millions of national and international visitors. Forest roads are also an integral part of the transportation system for rural counties. They provide access for research, fish and wildlife habitat management, grazing, timber harvesting, fire protection, mining, insect and disease control, and private land use.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury in Fish of the American and Bear River
    MERCURY IN FISH OF THE AMERICAN AND BEAR RIVER WATERSHED RESERVOIRS: TISSUE ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES FOR MINIMIZING EXPOSURE AT LAKE CLEMENTINE AND ROLLINS RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA ____________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Environmental Science ____________ by Alexandria Kathleen Keeble-Toll Summer 2016 MERCURY IN FISH OF THE AMERICAN AND BEAR RIVER WATERSHED RESERVOIRS: TISSUE ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIES FOR MINIMIZING EXPOSURE AT LAKE CLEMENTINE AND ROLLINS RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA A Thesis by Alexandria Kathleen Keeble-Toll Summer 2016 APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES: _________________________________ Sharon Barrios, Ph.D. APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ______________________________ _________________________________ Guy Q. King, Ph.D. Carrie Monohan, Ph.D., Chair Graduate Coordinator _________________________________ David Brown, Ph.D. _________________________________ Glen Pearson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For my Mom and Dad who pushed me to pursue graduate work in a third discipline, even if it was only through casual questions. And for my family for understanding that I needed to be more than just “Momma,” for not complaining about my late nights and early mornings on the road to Chico, and for sharing a year and a half of cold burrito dinner leftovers. Jackson and Astella – may you fish lots and only eat trout. For the staff of The Sierra Fund, for inviting me to join the “smart girls club,” and especially for Dr. Monohan – a mentor, and a friend. For Bill Templin of DWR, who taught me how to fish, and Tiffany Stillwater of BAL for being there when I thought I lost the fish.
    [Show full text]